Jump to content

Cameron H.

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Cameron H.

  1. 3 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Yes, but BOTH women in the movie have their issues tied back to infertility. It's not so much that the idea is invoked once here, it's that it's part of a long-standing and over-used trope.

    Yes, but this is more to draw parallels between the couples, is it not? In Nick and Honey, we’re seeing George and Martha  twenty something years ago - except instead of being unable to conceive, Honey had an abortion. It wouldn’t make sense theatrically for the only other couple in the movie to not relate. The question is whether or not they follow the same path or break the cycle.

    To the other point, the reason I don’t like that particularly rationale is that it suggests that if a woman - or anyone really - makes the independent choice that what they want more than anything is to be a homemaker and that having children is the most important thing in the world to them, that that choice somehow makes them less-than. I’m not saying you specifically, but I’ve definitely encountered that thinking generally. For me, that’s just placing people in another box. In my mind, true equality means being able to chase your bliss however you see fit without limit or judgment. That’s why I don’t find the idea of her being torn up by infertility to be particularly “outdated.” There are people in 2019 that feel the exact same way Martha does. That’s why I said, as long as it’s what she actually wants, and not something being forced upon her by George or somebody else, then who cares? Would it have improved the movie if what Martha wanted was to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Even if the trope feels overused, it’s something almost universal. At some point during their life, most people will probably have to make a decision about starting a family. Whether they choose to start one or not is irrelevant. The fact that they can place themselves in her shoes is enough.

  2. 2 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Sure. I mean, they are, clearly. It's just that to me the movie feels like it's being presented as something immediate, very forward-looking, as opposed to something like, say, Gone with the Wind, which is already meant to be portraying an antiquated time even for when it was originally made. There's a dissonance there with Woolf that threw me off.

    I guess I just didn't get that Woolf was trying to be particularly "forward-thinking" so much it was an intimate character study. You said in your original post that the movie  showed the "negative effect" of what not being able to have a baby can have on a woman and that this contributed to it feeling "outdated." Maybe I'm misunderstanding yours and Amy's point, but I just don't feel like the idea of Martha wanting to have a baby, and her subsequent frustration at their inability to conceive, to be inherently "outdated."  No one in the film (surprisingly) ever tells her, "You are less of a woman because you haven't had a child." She's disappointed because she's being denied something that SHE wants by factors beyond her control. Societal pressure really doesn't come into play at all - at least not overtly. And I assume, much like the homosexual thing, had Albee or Nichols really wanted that to be part of the story they were telling, they could have easily written it into the plot. Ultimately, I interpreted Woolf to be a story about the damage unfulfilled dreams - particularly ones that never come to pass due to circumstances beyond your control - can wreak upon an individual, and by extension, their relationships. In this case, Albee choose for that dream to be represented as a baby. And while I suppose it could have been represented by just about anything, I don't feel like it necessarily had to be something else either.

    Unless of course the complaint is: "She's a woman so of course the writer made the manifestation of all her hopes and desires a baby." But as long as Martha retains her agency, I really don't see a problem with that.  

  3. 2 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Some of this is what Amy brought up: the assumptions about male/female roles are really rooted in the time. Not just that the failure to have kids will inevitably have a negative effect on women, but also the general social pressure to be married, that the younger couple felt an absolute need to marry because of a pregnancy that turned out to be false. Not sure you could put that in a movie today. I'm not really blaming the movie for that (those were the standards of the time), but as an all-time entry I found it a bit unfortunately dated.

    Does it help to think of them not as representative of all women and men, but merely as characters unto themselves? Or, at the very most, merely representatives of a certain population? 

  4. I’m sure there are some videos out there from the long, long ago, but I think they more or less stopped before they began. I think Paul said in a mini one time that there’s a whole rights thing with video that they don’t have to deal with when it’s strictly audio. Also, I want to say there was something said in Spontaneanation about Largo, where most Earwolf live episodes are tapped, no longer allowing video recordings. That doesn’t necessarily explain why they can’t film when they’re on the road, but I think that goes back to the first point. A rights issue and it being more trouble than it’s worth.

  5. Aside from just “it’s plot relevant so the characters need say something,” my head cannon explanation for why George tells Martha not to bring up their “son,” and why Martha spoils the beans to Honey so quickly, is that the next day, Sunday, really is their “son’s” birthday. Or rather, it’s the 16th anniversary of when they decided to invent him therefor it’s making it his “birthday.” Because of that, I think it’s the day when the balance between illusion and reality is at its most tenuous. Their son is forefront in their minds so they are more likely to say something - especially after heavily drinking for 5 hours.

    It’s the reason that it being Sunday, or rather Son-day, is so significant. And why, as George says, it will last “all day.”

  6. Just some additional trivia regarding George and Martha Washington is that George Washington himself was infertile (hence there not being any Georgie Jrs). In fact, it was a major reason why he was a popular choice for the first president as it prevented any chance of the presidency becoming an hereditary title like there was in Britain. The irony, of course, is that the man known as the father of our country was incapable of having children of his own.

    All in all, I enjoy the Washington/United States metaphor as it applies to Virginia Woolf. That something so promising was rooted in a dysfunction it can’t help but infect subsequent  generations. 

  7. Amy and Paul drink in 1966's black relationship comedy Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? They learn about Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton's status as the Brangelina of their day, ask which member of the ensemble is the meanest, and wonder if George and Martha are truly in love after all. Plus: A new tasting segment, this time with a very rare spirit!

    What do you think is in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction? Call the Unspooled voicemail line at 747-666-5824 with your answer! Follow us on Twitter @Unspooled, get more info at unspooledpod.com and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts. Photo credit: Kim Troxall

    This episode is brought to you by Ooni Wood Fired Pizza Oven (www.ooni.com code: UNSPOOLED10) and Betterhelp (www.betterhelp.com/unspooled).

  8. 12 minutes ago, tomspanks said:

    Tracy wanted Dexter to become a “serious composer” or a diplomat, but instead he became a “jukebox hero,” which is not a reputable career, I guess?

    That's the kind of classist thing I was talking about. It wasn't enough that he was successful. He needed to be successful in a "respectable" (i.e. blue blooded) kind of way. But after she says that, it's never really an issue again. After she says that to him she seems pretty into his music and I guess we're supposed to infer that something in the plot occurred that made her have a change of heart. 

    • Like 4

  9. I have not seen Philadelphia Story (I own it, but I’ve been saving it to watch with Unspooled), and I have to say, this isn’t what I thought it was about at all - lol.

    Overall, I thought it was fine, but a bit too light to be substantial. Nothing felt necessary. It felt like they could (or maybe should) have introduced maybe some more class conflict. I mean, it’s kind of there, but not enough that you would believe it was making any kind of statement. Things happen and they’re resolved. It’s plotting all felt very sitcom-y to me. 

    • Like 4

  10. @tomspanks just sent me this.

    It looks like rabb.it has shut down. I'm not really sure what that means for our movie nights. This really sucks. I've enjoyed spending these nights with you all once a month watching through these movies. It was a lot of fun to communicate with you all in real time as we watch these shitty, shitty movies.

    Anyway, if anyone stumbles across another site like rabb.it, please let me know. Hopefully we can figure out some way of continuing.

    • Sad 2

  11. 8 minutes ago, Jeffery Charles Nighswander said:

    I could agree with that, but to my point, it definitely didn't do anything to paint anyone in a negative light.

    Oh, I know. I wasn't trying to defend anyone. They're all shits. I was just agreeing with you that I doubt the movie was trying to portray the other Confederates as "dumb" so much as it was merely illustrating the prevailing attitudes of the time. I don't feel like the film was either endorsing or criticizing their behavior. Again, I haven't listened yet so I'm not sure of the context, but it's easy to say in hindsight, "Look at how dumb those people were! Surely they knew they knew how wrong they were and they never had a chance." My point was, historically, no they didn't. The war was anything but a sure thing and the movie. The only thing that particular scene said to me was Rhett is a pragmatist who is the only person who can see that the proverbial winds are changing and isn't so married to the past that he can't evolve - even thrive - with the times. 

    I don't really have a comment on Clockwork Orange/ Gone with the Wind comparison.  

    • Like 1

  12. 7 minutes ago, Jeffery Charles Nighswander said:

    . She tried to say that this scene was the film trying to show how it thought the war was "dumb," but clearly this was a scene designed to show the Confederates as plucky optimists while still letting the be brave by pointing out that the North had a clear advantage. The scene was CLEARLY designed to make the Confederates look better and was in no way intended to show that the film was painting them as stupid for fighting the war.

    I haven’t listened to the episode yet so I can’t speak to context, but I will say that I’m currently reading Grant by Ron Chernow, and at least according to him, the film seems to be pretty accurate regarding the attitudes of the people at the time. No one thought it would come to actually come to war, and even if it did, it would only be a bit of saber rattling and be over in a month or two. So I agree, I don’t think the movie was trying to paint the Confederates as being “dumb” but rather than to show that the prevailing attitude at the time - on both sides - was one of overconfidence. Why not talk tough and enlist when it’s all going to be over in a couple of weeks? I mean, civilians brought their children and picnic baskets the Battle of Bull Run! That’s how much people underestimated how brutal and protracted the war would be.

    For me, that scene is more of a character moment to show us just how shrewd Rhett Butler is and how insightful Ashley is. They are the only two to recognize the severity of the situation, and both respond in very different ways. So, no, I don’t think it’s commenting on their stupidity rather than documenting the historical reality.

  13. 1 hour ago, Cockney Mackem said:

    Hopefully the gang gets round to doing Jaws The Revenge as well, because that takes bad film-making to an unprecedented, operatic level of shit. The shark is after the Brodies. How does a shark know the Brody brother works for Amity Police, and that he's on duty that night and will come to clear the trap at the harbour? How does the shark know that the other Brody brother works in the Caribbean, and that the Mum is going to fly down there? The shark is *waiting for her* when she gets there - does it have access to airline passenger manifests? Can it use a computer?

    I have a theory that in Jaws The Revenge the shark is in some kind of aquatic FBI and the Brody family are the antagonists. The first shark was unethically hunted by the Chief and his accomplice with the fishing boat. The second was investigating that murder and was electrocuted in a murderous cover up with the help of a complicit Amity community.

    In Jaws 3, another shark is investigating this seagoing crime family, and stumbles on the rampant animal cruelty and exploitation at Sea World, and not only pays with her life trying to expose it but her child dies at well.

    Jaws The Revenge is in fact a downbeat policier following a relentless shark FBI agent who won't rest until the Brodies pay for their crimes. He's crossing all sorts of lines because THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL. His captain at the precinct says "That's it Jaws, you're too emotionally involved, I'm taking you off the case." "God dammit Cap, not when I'm this close!" "OK Jaws, you've got 24 hours, and if you're wrong it's your dorsal fin in the fire..." In the end there is no justice for the sharks because the humans are too powerful and ruthless. Forget it Jaws, it's Chinatown.


  14. 52 minutes ago, The_Triple_Lindy said:

    I'm blown away that the Movie Bitches thought they'd go to Detective Pikachu and get Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which is easily a top 5 all-time fav, but I'm also blown away that they think WFRR? is a kids' movie? Murder, alcoholism, a truly frightening main villain, tons of sexual innuendo and Jessica goddamn Rabbit? It seems more like a nostalgia movie for boomers who grew up with Looney Tunes and Disney and wanted to see them in a more mature setting.

    Who Framed Roger Rabbit -- a kid's movie: Yeah or nah?

    EDIT to add: Not that kids can't enjoy it, because I surely did, but I just don't think Zemeckis really had kids in mind when he made it.

    I’d say it’s an 80’s family movie. There’s a lot in it that wouldn’t get by today (e.g. smoking), but was common for the time. I don’t feel like it’s a movie made with an adults-only mindset. There’s sexuality, but no actual sex. But then you could say the same thing about Betty Boop. A lot of the things that we might consider problematic today were present in those old cartoons already.

    Cool World is WFRR for adults.

    • Like 3

  15. 9 minutes ago, gigi-tastic said:

    I cannot WAIT for you guys to get to A Dog's Life it's one of the few episodes I knew before I started watching/ listening . Its...next level. I would pay so much money, too much money, I would bankrupt myself, to have June watch it and give her opinion

    It’s the next Murder She Wrote episode we’ll be recording! :) (We’ve got a Magnum before that though...) 

    • Like 2

  16. 2 hours ago, gigi-tastic said:

    I get chronic migraines and I just got the first I've had in a month (and it's been a pretty bad one. I've been mainlineing episodes of  podcasts and between Nicole Byer and this I have a reason to not become cryogenicly frozen like Walt Disney.  Also I think you guys have something to do with Murder She Wrote being on prime now!

    OMG! Thanks Gigi! 

    • Like 1